Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Person012345]

Everyone should probably just start moving out of the US now. I mean, it was a nice little experiment and all, worked for a hundred years or so but it's probably time to call it quits. I hear Canada has lots of space.

[The Calldari State]

Todd Akin said women who are victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because their bodies have a way to “shut that whole thing down.”

So getting raped gives you superhuman control of your body?

Please tell me he was making some sort of joke that went over everybody's head, I refuse to believe that people this stupid actually exist.

[Elan Valleys]

Well, as any medieval doctor could tell you, a woman can only get pregnant if she orgasms.

[The De Danann Nation]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link

St. Louis – Congressman Todd Akin just released the following statement regarding his interview on the “Jaco Report” broadcast this morning in St. Louis:

“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.

“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”

St. Louis, Mo.–McCaskill for Missouri 2012 released the following statement from Sen. Claire McCaskill after Todd Akin said women who are victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because their bodies have a way to “shut that whole thing down.” As a former prosecutor, Claire McCaskill has worked closely with hundreds of rape victims and intimately understands their trauma and pain. It is that experience that makes Akin’s statements so outrageous.

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” said McCaskill. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”

What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

Ah no.This man is a disgrace to Republicans everywhere.Why couldn't he be a Democrat,it would suit him better.

[Poorisolation]

I had to google the Ken Clarke comment...my god...I am utterly speechless. What a scumbag bastard.

Which one? The one I can find has him saying that an 18 year old having sex with a willing 15 year old is not serious rape... which is fair enough (imo).

The crime of Ken Clarke is in wanting to reform the prosecution of rape in order to nail more of the guilty bastards to the wall...ahem present juries with a wider range of charges and penalties that more accurately reflect the wide range of situations and variable circumstances that surround what at its core remains a very serious crime.

People ask how folks can be so stupid? ASB above illustrates how some of this apparent stupidity is in fact ideologically driven though regretfully he fails to mention you have to be equally sceptical of the left. Then again at the end of the day applying thought and wit and acquiring knowledge all require hard work so perhaps we ought to be simply glad that there are any intelligent people out there in the World at all.

[Farnhamia]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link



What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

Ah no.This man is a disgrace to Republicans everywhere.Why couldn't he be a Democrat,it would suit him better.

Trust me, when Fox News runs this, he will be a Democrat. But why would that suit him better?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Ah no.This man is a disgrace to Republicans everywhere.Why couldn't he be a Democrat,it would suit him better.

Trust me, when Fox News runs this, he will be a Democrat. But why would that suit him better?

Because Dems are the real bogeymen of course!

[Alien Space Bats]

Well, as any medieval doctor could tell you, a woman can only get pregnant if she orgasms.

Medieval medicine requires neither any belief in evolution nor health insurance.

<nods>

[Dyakovo]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link

St. Louis – Congressman Todd Akin just released the following statement regarding his interview on the “Jaco Report” broadcast this morning in St. Louis:

“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.

“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”

St. Louis, Mo.–McCaskill for Missouri 2012 released the following statement from Sen. Claire McCaskill after Todd Akin said women who are victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because their bodies have a way to “shut that whole thing down.” As a former prosecutor, Claire McCaskill has worked closely with hundreds of rape victims and intimately understands their trauma and pain. It is that experience that makes Akin’s statements so outrageous.

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” said McCaskill. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”

What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

Why would the GOP remove his nomination? This is the attitude they like their candidates to take.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link



What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

Ah no.This man is a disgrace to Republicans everywhere.Why couldn't he be a Democrat,it would suit him better.

I think you'll find the republicans have a much more... extensive history when it comes to saying stupid, out of touch things about abortion, women, rape etc.

How exactly would this kind of ass hattery be better suited to a Democrat?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link



What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims

.

Why would the GOP remove his nomination? This is the attitude they like their candidates to take.

Yeah I keep forgetting that...but surely this madness cannot continue...

[The Archregimancy]

Which one? The one I can find has him saying that an 18 year old having sex with a willing 15 year old is not serious rape... which is fair enough (imo).

The crime of Ken Clarke is in wanting to reform the prosecution of rape in order to nail more of the guilty bastards to the wall...ahem present juries with a wider range of charges and penalties that more accurately reflect the wide range of situations and variable circumstances that surround what at its core remains a very serious crime.

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

[Ryan12]

so if other girls just learned this we would have the perfect birth control

[Saruhan]

The crime of Ken Clarke is in wanting to reform the prosecution of rape in order to nail more of the guilty bastards to the wall...ahem present juries with a wider range of charges and penalties that more accurately reflect the wide range of situations and variable circumstances that surround what at its core remains a very serious crime.

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

What's the difference between Violent rape and Regular rape?

[Zottistan]

Does he have evidence for this, or is he just assuming?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Does he have evidence for this, or is he just assuming?

Probably creationist based biology...

[Dyakovo]

Does he have evidence for this, or is he just assuming?

Probably creationist based biology...

That would be my guess as well.

[Person012345]

The crime of Ken Clarke is in wanting to reform the prosecution of rape in order to nail more of the guilty bastards to the wall...ahem present juries with a wider range of charges and penalties that more accurately reflect the wide range of situations and variable circumstances that surround what at its core remains a very serious crime.

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

I don't think it was. The whole point of the thing was that he advocates slashing the penalty for those who plead guilty. This should mean that more rapists confess, rather then risk going to jail for twice as long, and that the victims would not have to relive out their experience in court. Theoretically it might be a good idea. The contention was, by the reporter or whoever, that given the average sentence for rape was 5 years, this would mean that all these rapists wouuld be back out roaming the streets in maybe 12 months. Mr. Clarke was arguing that that is not correct, because those "average" statistics include statutory rape where there was actually no coercion involved, which is not "proper rape". He conflated the term "date rape" with this though, he seemed under the impression that "date rape" meant two teenagers going on a date and having consensual sex which was then classified as "rape". He was saying that those are included in the average statistics, so actually, most cases of "proper" rape wherein a man violently coerces a woman (note that violently does not necessarily mean physical violence, I have seen a number of definitions of the word) would actually still get reasonable jail sentences. Which of course ignores when men get raped, although that sort of ignorance is quite common and therefore forgivable - not that it should be allowed to stand, but I don't think that we should immediately witch-hunt someone just because they said that rape is male-female. They should be corrected certainly though. But I digress.

[Forsakia]

The crime of Ken Clarke is in wanting to reform the prosecution of rape in order to nail more of the guilty bastards to the wall...ahem present juries with a wider range of charges and penalties that more accurately reflect the wide range of situations and variable circumstances that surround what at its core remains a very serious crime.

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

Although I'm not exactly pleased at him apparently not knowing what 'date rape' was when dealing with the issue.

[Poorisolation]

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

I don't think it was. The whole point of the thing was that he advocates slashing the penalty for those who plead guilty. This should mean that more rapists confess, rather then risk going to jail for twice as long, and that the victims would not have to relive out their experience in court. Theoretically it might be a good idea. The contention was, by the reporter or whoever, that given the average sentence for rape was 5 years, this would mean that all these rapists wouuld be back out roaming the streets in maybe 12 months. Mr. Clarke was arguing that that is not correct, because those "average" statistics include statutory rape where there was actually no coercion involved, which is not "proper rape". He conflated the term "date rape" with this though, he seemed under the impression that "date rape" meant two teenagers going on a date and having consensual sex which was then classified as "rape". He was saying that those are included in the average statistics, so actually, most cases of "proper" rape wherein a man violently coerces a woman (note that violently does not necessarily mean physical violence, I have seen a number of definitions of the word) would actually still get reasonable jail sentences. Which of course ignores when men get raped, although that sort of ignorance is quite common and therefore forgivable - not that it should be allowed to stand, but I don't think that we should immediately witch-hunt someone just because they said that rape is male-female. They should be corrected certainly though. But I digress.

The point of graduation of offences is that it increases the likelihood that juries will convict. That being step one. Offering reduced sentences in return for guilty pleas that spare the victim the further trauma of a trial is step two. The point being that at the moment due to the low rate of successful prosecutions even the guiltiest of defendants have little incentive to co-operate and their defence teams every incentive to abuse and malign the victim confident in the expectation their client will get off and even if they do not it does not make a difference anyway.

The further hope is that then realising that a rape conviction is possible at least some potential rapists will reconsider and produce a win-win situation all round. Deterrence after all is the preferred objective of sound law. Failing successful deterrence a shift to making subsequent events less of an endurance test for the victim is also considered by many desirable.

As to male on male rape that has been prosecuted as such in the UK at least since 1995.

Edit: can't spell today probably other typos I have missed.

[Greed and Death]

Everyone should probably just start moving out of the US now. I mean, it was a nice little experiment and all, worked for a hundred years or so but it's probably time to call it quits. I hear Canada has lots of space.

I am staying here I always wanted to rule over some ruins.

[Jtopius]

I just saw MSN's article about this and I kinda just wanna strangle him for being an idiot. This is not the sort of bull we need to be dealing with from our country in this age.

I don't see how not having the ability to get an abortion is anything but punishment in the case of a very unwanted pregnancy. And with the way America's adoption/foster care systems are, there's always the chance that the child would be "punished" as well.

I don't even want to get into Ken Clarke's idiocy.

[Poorisolation]

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

Although I'm not exactly pleased at him apparently not knowing what 'date rape' was when dealing with the issue.

I take it you have never received less than 100% marks in an exam and have never gotten confused or misspoke nor been misrepresented in reported conversation ever?

[Terruana]

Although I'm not exactly pleased at him apparently not knowing what 'date rape' was when dealing with the issue.

I take it you have never received less than 100% marks in an exam and have never gotten confused or misspoke nor been misrepresented in reported conversation ever?

Being a politician, it is part of his job not to make those kinds of mistakes...

[Terruana]

I don't think it was. The whole point of the thing was that he advocates slashing the penalty for those who plead guilty. This should mean that more rapists confess, rather then risk going to jail for twice as long, and that the victims would not have to relive out their experience in court. Theoretically it might be a good idea. The contention was, by the reporter or whoever, that given the average sentence for rape was 5 years, this would mean that all these rapists wouuld be back out roaming the streets in maybe 12 months. Mr. Clarke was arguing that that is not correct, because those "average" statistics include statutory rape where there was actually no coercion involved, which is not "proper rape". He conflated the term "date rape" with this though, he seemed under the impression that "date rape" meant two teenagers going on a date and having consensual sex which was then classified as "rape". He was saying that those are included in the average statistics, so actually, most cases of "proper" rape wherein a man violently coerces a woman (note that violently does not necessarily mean physical violence, I have seen a number of definitions of the word) would actually still get reasonable jail sentences. Which of course ignores when men get raped, although that sort of ignorance is quite common and therefore forgivable - not that it should be allowed to stand, but I don't think that we should immediately witch-hunt someone just because they said that rape is male-female. They should be corrected certainly though. But I digress.

The point of graduation of offences is that it increases the likelihood that juries will convict. That being step one. Offering reduced sentences in return for guilty pleas that spare the victim the further trauma of a trial is step two. The point being that at the moment due to the low rate of successful prosecutions even the guiltiest of defendants have little incentive to co-operate and their defence teams every incentive to abuse and malign the victim confident in the expectation their client will get off and even if they do not it does not make a difference anyway.

The further hope is that then realising that a rape conviction is possible at least some potential rapists will reconsider and produce a win-win situation all round. Deterrence after all is the preferred objective of sound law. Failing successful deterrence a shift to making subsequent events less of an endurance test for the victim is also considered by many desirable.

As to male on male rape that has been prosecuted as such in the UK at least since 1995.

Edit: can't spell today probably other typos I have missed.

I suspect they were also referring to female on male rape, tbh